David Bradley

Do yourself a huge favour and do all of this in post using a better camera. I like the 450 but its still DVCAM, get something that will shoot dvc pro 50. The gaussian blur tool in after effects will probably give you a better look. Keep your footage well exposed and in focus, the beauty of video is what you can do in post - if your rushes are scrap your screwed later down the line. Dave

Argh! Unfortunately last week two of the guys I was shooting a doc with managed to shoot in letter box rather than the agreed 16:9. Does anyone know of a way to add black bars to the 16:9 footage to mimick the 4:3 letterbox? i.e. programme, plugins, techniques? Dave

tracking pupils in an effects programme such as after effects would be a nightmare unless the subject was at a very constant distance from the camera. Would be far less time consuming and realistic if you used contact lenses not to mention cheaper.

yes I see where you are coming from, blotting out the legs is a good idea - saves me alot of work. Perhaps I will need to limit the number of shots in which the player appears twice. This would give me alot more versatillity in terms of repositioning the camera. Perhaps some testing is in order. Do you think it a good idea to shoot a scene as a master without bluescreen and then use that as the background for the chroma key later? Would it look convincing if I could replicate the lighting or would it be easier to do it all in studio with a screen? Best David

mask? My worry with chroma key is that without several thousand pounds worth of equipment which I can't afford it looks pretty aweful. I have basic chroma facilities i.e. blue screen but thats it. Could we not fix a static camera, wide angle on stable grip - shoot the player in one half of the room and then in the other without the two ever intersecting. Is it possible to effectively cut the screen in two and patch them together in post or am I making matters more difficult for myself. Any literature anyone could advise would help? Thanks Dave

Shooting a music video, director/producer spring the following idea on me: They want the artist to appear in the same frame as different characters, each played by himself. I've never done anything like this before and they are aware of my lack of experience but want to go ahead anyway (their funeral). How do I do this? Will I require chroma key? Best David

It looks quite good with regards the lighting design and some of the angles employed. I agree with Brad's sentiment that the shots are consistently too tight. Perhaps if you had some steadier camera work (steadicam or dolly) at a slightly wider angle the handheld CU/BCUs would have been less disorientating. Apart from that I found some of the shots were too long, the fact that its free hand and your panning and tilting to frame each member of the band gave it a home video aesthetic - if you wanted that then good job but I prefer cuts. Its an edgy look and definately fitting for the track.

Assuming your using a video camera you first have to establish a colour temperature for the scene by manipulating the in camera white balance. Gelling your tungsten lights is generally easier than gelling the windows but by the sounds of it you don't have any gels so here is an alternative or two. The average colour temperature in Kelvin of daylight is somewhere around '5600K', generally tungsten lights are around '3200K' (the higher the number the bluer the light) so YES the scene will appear abnormally blue if your camera is white balanced for tungsten or it will look too warm (red) if balanced for day light. One alternative considering you don't have gels (which by the way aren't that costly) is waiting until night and beaming your tungsten lamps through the windows thus mimicking daylight. In this scenario you would balance the camera to 3200K and you wouldn't have to worry too much about variations in colour temperature. Another alternative is as you suggested, to frame away from the window, flag (block) all of the daylight coming through the windows (heavy curtains should do) and light the scene accordingly. Ideally you want to invest in some gels/diffusion/reflectors etc. If your considering lighting/camera as a career then the only way to learn is by doing. Hope this helps and doesn't sound too patronising. Best David

For safety I would check but yes - The Z1U at 0db is ISO 320.

I may have a job interview at TNS UK (Chiswick Park, London) upcoming. Has anyone encountered them before or perhaps works for them and could shed any light on their services so I can hit the ground running in the interview.

thats very odd. And it even says PD 170p indicating a PAL system. 530 lines sounds more like an NTSC system? I stand corrected if otherwise. Regardless the point still stands that the viewfinder is not a reliable tool for focusing. If you still have the camera why not shoot some screen tests on a properly illuminated/white balanced subject in MCU/CU and post them, I don't really see the problem otherwise - DV doesn't handle underexposure well at all.

depends on the gain setting. I rate a the Z1U at 320 at 0db. I imagine its the same for the V1U.

The camera records at 625 lines at 50i (PAL). The LCD does have 500 lines in both the PAL and NTSC system. The PD-170 is a pretty fine camera considering its price relative to that of a proffessional DVCAM camcorder. Sony's DSR 450 WSP retails at about £12,500/$25,000 including a fujinon ENG lens. Compare the images and you start to see why the PD-170 (due to its price and functionality) is so popular. Maybe I should be a saled rep for Sony :blink:

PD 170s are never great in low light situations, and when not properly balanced I find the images tend to lack contrast. Also check your gain. Never eye the LCD viewfinder for focus, its good for composition but thats about it - the reason being that the LCD viewfinder is composed of 500 lines of vertical resolution which is approximately 5/6+ of PAL 625 lines. Look into getting a video monitor, properly alligned with SMPTE bars it should give you a far more accurate rendition of how the image will turn out. Auto focus can be point or matrix (i think) meaning the camera may take an aggregate of all the objects in the picture and focus according to the most objects that will appear sharp at the given depth of field (matrix) or it will take a reading of the object in the center of the frame and focus on that. It would be interesting to see something in MCU and CU as these long/wide shots don't really provide as much information. Perhaps if we saw something closer one could assert whether or not you have a focus issue.

If it needs to be cheap it doesn't get much cheaper than mini DV. In a studio situation or any multi camera shoot I find that time code is help full. Perhaps something from the sony DSR range. I've used a DSR 570 WS for studio/multi shoots, the time code facilities are a great help and as an all rounder its not a bad DVCAM camcorder. ps Not my place really but sooner or later one of the moderators will ask you to use your real name when posting on this forum.

Sam, Hire the camera but an sdx will cost a bit more than a sony dsr.

Get a press pass, you can apply diretly to the london met. To be fair i've only ever used it for work but I'm sure if I flashed it at some security guard by the time he had figured what was going on I might have finished.

Its an awesome book, its essentially an in depth guide to blocking and film grammer with diagrams to illustrate the text. I read it about a year ago and now I use it from time to time to check storyboards and shot lists particularly in multiple camera shoots. The diagrams are grossly sexist, seriously all the women in the illustrations are in bikinis or naked! worth a read.

Usually avoid vignetting. Basically a lens isn't crafted to vignette, its a fault. You can add a vignetting effect in post if your shooting video and there is probably ways to do it in the lab. If all else fails I have used a matte box positioned too far from the glass with a vey wide focal length, the corners then appear to have vignetted.

Is this for broadcast. Cooking shows aren't recorded at progressive frame rates (at least not in the UK) so I wouldn't worry too much about hiring a proggressive camcorder if you are trying to mimick the established conventions of the food network. If it must be 16:9 and you don't mind interlaced scans then you might consider the sony DSR 570 WS, the non-proggressive predecessor to the DSR 450 WS. It has time code facilities for multi camera shoots. If budget is of greater concern and your OK shooting 4:3 something like the DSR 250 would do - it has 1/3" CCDs as opposed to the 570's 2/3" CCDs so its kind of a trade of, less money but greater depth of field (considering the nature of the program though that shouldn't really be a problem.) So in short: - DSR 570 (16:9, shallower DOF, time code) - DSR 250 (4:3, greater DOF, less money) or you could stick with the DVX and shoot 60i if you are editing in an NLE.

I think stockings would do the job, just get the kind girls wear to make it look like they're not wearing any, they are so fine that they should provide adequate halation in the highlights without fogging the blacks too much.

Good idea Daniel. AGP simply doesn't have the bandwidth to cope with top end GPUs. I'd find something from Nvidia's 6000 series like a 6800GT. As far as editing goes I would invest in a Nitris suite or something of the like.

z1p and z1u are in essence the same camera. The Z1U is a European model and and the Z1P is US. They are both NTSC/Pal switchable.

hvx 200, records progressive. that would be my choice out of those four but have you not considered SD cameras as if its a school programme its unlikely to be outputted in hd?

hadn't heard of these. look great. Thanks Stuart.